On Sun, Nov 27, 2016 at 01:19:54PM +0000, Mel Gorman wrote:
> While it is recognised that this is a mixed bag of results, the patch
> helps a lot more workloads than it hurts and intuitively, avoiding the
> zone->lock in some cases is a good thing.
>
> Signed-off-by: Mel Gorman <mgorman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
This seems like a net gain to me, and the patch loos good too.
Acked-by: Johannes Weiner <hannes@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> @@ -255,6 +255,24 @@ enum zone_watermarks {
> NR_WMARK
> };
>
> +/*
> + * One per migratetype for order-0 pages and one per high-order up to
> + * and including PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER. This may allow unmovable
> + * allocations to contaminate reclaimable pageblocks if high-order
> + * pages are heavily used.
I think that should be fine. Higher order allocations rely on being
able to compact movable blocks, not on reclaim freeing contiguous
blocks, so poisoning reclaimable blocks is much less of a concern than
poisoning movable blocks. And I'm not aware of any 0 < order < COSTLY
movable allocations that would put movable blocks into an HO cache.
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>